₦airaland Forum

Please please please. Let us distill issues.

First off: I AM NOT A MUSLIM.

Let that be clear: because i was born a christian but could not continue to justify the ridiculous dogma that is preached by christianity.

You have stated that everything that happens is the will of God. In a broad philosophical context, this argument can sail through. But in specific terms it is riddled with problems.

For example: would you say that the original sin in the garden of Eden (the apple) was the will of God? He expressed great displeasure at it. It is clear that it was not the will of God. Because if it was, it would be really strange that he willed that and then proceeded to punish man for that.

For crying out loud, let's be fair - give me your own interpretation of the parable of the vineyard if you dare.

Nobody has stated that Jesus could not be tainted by sin: we said that God could not be tainted by sin.

Go ahead, if you dare, and state that God is tainted with sin.

No, Noetic in his last post showed some brevity of intellect, and i repeat my challenge for a deductive response to the issues i raised.

Dwonder, you make absolute sense, and i know your words to be true, but i fear the Christian (Dogma) Soldiers Noetic and Davidylan are lost beyond grasp: They may not even be aware that the Trinity doctrine was only inculcated at the Council of Nicea, an event the then Pope refused to attend because he disagreed with the dogma being introduced.

They will doubtless also deny that there have been corruptions within biblical text in this regard.

I was initially very impressed that they could defend their positions, but i have since become disillusioned, looks like they might be just another pair of fanatics unwilling to be rational: just the same thing they accuse the muslims of!

Sorry, guys, didn't mean to hurt, just being frank with you.

@ Noetic, for some reason i credited you, and still credit you, with greater abilities and reasoning than your last post justified.

You were absolutely unable to address any of the issues.

Let's have a look.

noetic2:
I have addressed this no less than 3 times on this forum.

a. was Jesus crucifixion prophesied before He was born?

b. did He fulfil all other prophecies concerning Him?

The prayer of Jesus can be examined from the point of view of teaching us how to pray, . . . . .always submit to the will of God.

The fact that something is prophesied does not mean it was the will of God. The prophets prophesied many terrible happenings which certainly were not willed by God. A prophecy, as you know, is a prediction of a future event. Daniel's prophecies on the future course of human empire were most omnious, and certainly those events could not be said to be the will of God. So please, bring on another argument.

Again, i notice you had absolutley nothing to say about the parable of the vineyard. It is striking in its stark rebuttable of your conception of the purpose of Jesus's death. In response you could only point to prophecy. AS I HAVE INDICATED, the fact that something is predicted does not mean it is the will of God.

Please give me your own alternate interpretation of that parable if you dare.

No matter how hard you try, you must still concede that you owe your salvation to the acts of a traitor: Judas Iscariot. Please be decent and express some gratitude to him for once!

I am really tired of the excuse that Jesus was carrying sin, and as such made the statement about God forsaking him.

   1. Is it possible really for the perfection of "God" (who you say Jesus is) to be tainted with sin?

   2. Is it possible for God to forsake God?

These ideas are so ludicruous i just can't help but be amazed that rational persons can defend them.

I will like to enquire if you are aware of the catholic conventions supervised by the Holy Roman Emperor (the Council of Nicea) which decided much of the dogma that you now tenaciously cling on to.

Noetic, a better response please.

Davidylan - please do not run away. Give me a point by point response to the issues i raised above.

Davidylan, please do not run away: i demand a point by point response to the issues i raised above.

There you are Jesoul! I will respond shortly to your last post on the "Bleep at the Altar thread"

Apologies Krayola for the interuption, great thread, this.

Jokers. What ever does the exterior have to do with the spirit.

Adam and Eve - naked, yes? Just the way God meant it to be!

"Mere man is looking to the outward appearance, but God is looking to the heart"

Davidylan - I positively deny that:

  1. Within christ's view, only christians can be saved and

  2. That Christ's death on the cross was a spiritual sacrifice capable of redeeming any sins.

Some questions for you.

If Christ's death on the cross was intended by God as a spiritual sacrifice for redeeming sins THEN WHY -

  1. - Why would christ seek to evade the death on the cross? He prayed to God, asking for the cup to pass over his head. If indeed he were God, as you guys claim, HE COULD NEVER MAKE SUCH A PRAYER, because he would know the exact reason why the sacrifice was necessary, and coming from the divine heights, he could never be so irresponsible as to request that the central purpose of his earth-life should be thwarted.

I find it absolutely inconceivable that "God" could ever have made such a prayer. Jesus could only have made that prayer if the death on the cross was not his mission.

Another staggerin fact is that you lot fail to see the assault on the pagan trinity doctrine that is contained here. In stating "Nevertheless not as i will, but as you will" within that prayer, Jesus shows clearly that his will differed from the will of the Father, which is inconceivable if they are all one Godhead.

(Please in reaction to the above try to do better than giving me the worn-out excuse that it was his human frailty that made him utter these words, because frail or not, a knowledge of his purpose on earth would have precluded him from requesting an annulment of that very purpose - especially when he is supposedly God).

These are core questions you need to reflect on, and please be objective, and don't seek to justify and explain-away clear contradictions.

2. Also, i would ask you to reflect on the parable of the vineyard. Jesus states that the owner of a vineyard left it to his tenants to tend. The tenants grew boorish and arrogant. He sent many messengers to them to warn them, but the killed each messenger. Finally, he thought to send his son, believeing that they would listen to him. The tenants said to themselves - "this is the heir, let us kill him, and the inheritance would be ours." They killed him. The parable states that the owner of the vineyard will be greatly enraged with tenants and bring his wrath upon them.

The parable is very clear. The Vineyard is the world, and the tenants are mankind. God is the owner. The messengers are the prophets, and eventually the son that came refers to Jesus. They killed the son, and this was not the will of the father, thus inciting his wrath.

Explain this away if you can - this shows that the death on the cross was not the will of God.

3. Again, if it was the will of God, then Judas should be congratulated as the saviour of all mankind, for doing the will of God and ensuring our salvation by procuring Jesus' crucifixion.

4. Again, if it was the will of God, why on earth would Jesus scream while on the cross - "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" He should have known that this was only the fulfillment of God's purpose, and the question should never have come to his lips. ESPECIALLY SINCE HE IS SAID TO BE GOD HIMSELF.

I hope you can see how dreadfully contradictory your dogma is. It borders on the absurd and absolutely indefensible.[/b]. Go ahead and try to defend it, I want a logical point by point rebuttal, please, and not insults, thanks.

The least you must concede is that you accept it because its what you grew up being taught, because you must agree that it all sounds dreadfully improbable and contradictory to adherents of other faiths.

I want answers before we tackle the other question on whether Jesus believed non-christians would be saved.

goodguy:
Why do we always seek to attack Islam?

What is insane about facing the East? God is everywhere, and where ever anyone faces to pray to him should not even be of concern to any mortal. If I choose to bury my head in the ground to pray to God, that is between me and God alone, and is nobody's business.

And what's insane about washing parts of the body to pray to God? What if God requires it of them specially? Why do we Christians think that whatever we feel is absurd to us, must also be absurd to God? Why do we think we totally understand God, even more than himself?

Please people, live and let live!

This is the most sane post i have seen on nairaland till date

At all events, it is very clear that Jesus would not have spurned ANYBODY of ANY NATION: He made this clear by the example of the good samaritan, and also the samritan lady at the well. . . Also when asked about the requirements for salvation he stated only two: love of God and fellow man.

Nor would Muhammad have had problems with christians because in the Quoran both Christians and Jews are called "People of the Book". His only issue with Christianity was the shocking presumption in elevating Jesus the messenger to God, which quite frankly is clearly an anomaly, given the words of Jesus himself on the matter, clearly stating himself to be a messenger of God and not God. But people tend to hero-worship, and its not the first time in history a human being would be called God by his followers. It's very hard to understand how intelligent people can buy that stuff.

So in summary, it emerges that people are just being fanatics, neither Jesus nor Mohammed would have had a problem with each other.

@ Poster -

Thanks for your curiousity.

Without scolding you, i must say for the umpteenth time that i am amazed at the hollow interpretations that people attempt to ascribe to things.

Before proceeding, let me make clear that i am neither christian nor muslim, so do not accuse me of bias.

However the Creation Account in Genesis is a simple and and very probable account. Mind you, the sequence of creation as narrated therein is in consonance with evolutionary evidence of the sequence of development of living things, and is also a story that is repeated with staggering precision in thousands of native myths of ancient peoples scattered around the world, apparently one unrelated to the other.

The Account talks of days. It mentions days even before mentioning the sun or moon. This in itself makes it apparent that these are not days as understood by we earthlings.

I am not here to make any of the arguments that people have made - that it refers to 1000 years, 1 million years or any specific period for that matter.

What should be apparent to you is that the active personage within the account is said to be God, a supernatural being, and for this reason the days must refer to whatever HIS conception of days are within HIS own INCOMPREHENSIBLE Divine context. It could be that this refers to divine acts or anything else which we may not understand - but they are HIS days and not earthly days - that should be the key understanding.

So please don't talk about the sun and moon, that is just too simplistic a way to read text which is supposed to be primarily supernatural in nature.

If you ask me, that's a very poor reason to become an atheist. I do hope you are conversant with the correct definition of the word "Atheist" at all events. Because an Atheist is one who positively denies the existence of God, not one who merely finds religion, or any religion, to be incorrect.

Finally, if you read carefully Genesis 1:1 - 5, you may see signs that the first words refer to a spiritual creation and not this physical universe. The physical creation only kicks in from Verse 6. Check it out

Mullah Abuzola (Phed.). . . over to you

Are you sure. . . because the verses seemed quite clear when i read it o . . .

DAVID DONT FALL INTO A TRAP!

Although i don't have the verse with me, i am fully aware that the Quoran talks about the second coming of Christ, and it states that he will come in glory in the clouds to judge the world.

So please retract now, or Abuzola will score his first victory over you.

Mugus

Really? Is that what Christianity teaches?

Read Acts 10:34 - ". . . of a truth, God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation, he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted by God. . ."

So you see. . . the Bible is more liberal than some will have you believe. . .

To the extent that both individuals insist that only christians can be "saved". . . they still have a long way to go in perceptive development. If this is not their position, then i retract this statement.

Simple!

@ Tudor - You give me a very easy question! And my answer, i hope, will bring you up to speed in terms of the non-physical reasoning we are trying to extablish!

For the physical things in your list, the reverse is simply: non-physical! (E.g: Tangible/ Intangible).

For the non-physical forces you mentioned (e.g: gravity), the reverse is simply the absence of that force!

For the rest the answers are so simple i am astonished you could ask it -

Cold? Heat obviously! Please don't fritter away our precious time with such trivia!

Man? Woman!

A nation (defined as a joined ethnic group?) Nomads!

This is the last time i will spend my quality time answering questions such as these, Tudor. Rather than toss these trivia around, please answer the question: Is the principle of duality not self evident in all that exists?

Re: Light/ Dark - Up/ Down - Good/Bad - something/nothing - etc. Answer me, Tudor, no more pranks.

Of course i know you want to ensure tat more tax payers come there, that's why you want to share it with others. Do you really think there is salvation in pursuing such an agenda.

Busy financing his SECOND private jet, think - what would Jesus say? ? ? ? ? ? ?

You wicked person, you mean you are glad he has joined the legions of tax payers paying tax to Oyedepo?

How heartless, how limited in thinking can you be?

continue to donate to a theif, instead of taking your money to motherless babies homes. silly people!

They dropped the ball alright. But so did Sanusi - As MD of First Bank he gave non performing loans totalling N70 Billion. But that's being hushed up.

Clearly, to be fair, he should be held by the EFCC as well.

No, i think Divine Singularity is self evident to the rational mind.

Sir Welly! Very sound!